Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30631996›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2019

Large scale comparison of QSAR and conformal prediction methods and their applications in drug discovery.

Nicolas Bosc, Francis Atkinson, Eloy Felix, Anna Gaulton, Anne Hersey, Andrew R Leach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Nicolas BoscChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK. nbosc@ebi.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3562-1328
Francis AtkinsonChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Eloy FelixChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Anna GaultonChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Anne HerseyChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.
Andrew R LeachChemogenomics Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, CB10 1SD, UK.

Funding

FP7 Health 602156H2020 Research and Innovation 654248Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT104104/Z/14/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Structure-activity relationship modelling is frequently used in the early stage of drug discovery to assess the activity of a compound on one or several targets, and can also be used to assess the interaction of compounds with liability targets. QSAR models have been used for these and related applications over many years, with good success. Conformal prediction is a relatively new QSAR approach that provides information on the certainty of a prediction, and so helps in decision-making. However, it is not always clear how best to make use of this additional information. In this article, we describe a case study that directly compares conformal prediction with traditional QSAR methods for large-scale predictions of target-ligand binding. The ChEMBL database was used to extract a data set comprising data from 550 human protein targets with different bioactivity profiles. For each target, a QSAR model and a conformal predictor were trained and their results compared. The models were then evaluated on new data published since the original models were built to simulate a "real world" application. The comparative study highlights the similarities between the two techniques but also some differences that it is important to bear in mind when the methods are used in practical drug discovery applications.

Indexed as

ChEMBLCheminformaticsClassification modelsMondrian conformal predictionQSAR

Identifiers

PMID30631996
PMCPMC6690068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.